DANIEL BORNSTEIN
25
EHQHÀWV ODUJH VFDOH H[SRUW DJULFXOWXUH DW WKH H[SHQVH RI ORFDO SURGXFHUV ,QGHHG JORbalization is legitimized by the notion that the most vulnerable populations would be cushioned against any negative outcomes of economic growth. But this assumption conveniently neglects that small-scale farmers’ control of food production is in fact the best way to promote stable livelihoods and food security. The challenge for rural VRFLDO PRYHPHQWV WKHQ LV WR UHGHÀQH WKH GHYHORSPHQW SDUDGLJP DQG SODFH LPSOLFDtions for small farmers the core, rather than as a negative externality. The 2008 food crisis, which exposed the fallacious logic of a social protection policy based on cheap outside food markets, has offered an opportunity to re-open this debate. GREEN REVOLUTION-STYLE AGRICULTURE The Green Revolution (GR) model, based on the deployment of high-yielding varieties and chemical inputs, has ideological hegemony in the agricultural deYHORSPHQW ÀHOG 7KLV LV HYLGHQFHG E\ WKH GLVVHPLQDWLRQ RI SURGXFWLYLVW DJULFXOWXUH all over the world and the associated de-legitimization of small-scale farming. Even though the model was applied with the intent to increase food output in response to imminent domestic food shortages in Asia and Latin America, it has resulted in export-based agriculture. India and Vietnam, for example, have emerged as major exporters of rice and wheat, respectively, even as hunger persists among their rural poor. And the GR targeted major globally-traded commodity crops, not the diversity of crops necessary for nutrition. These outcomes serve to question whether the Green Revolution was ever meant to address food insecurity. In fact, it seems that the GR was a convenient way to avoid the land redistribution that would have transformed export-oriented agriculture systems into localized ones. The notion that higher yields were the only path to averting famine rested on the belief that no more land was available for cultivation – but this was not the case28. Ironically, not only had the prevailing export-based system driven the threat of famine, it had actually laid the foundation for further export production via new technologies. Technological dissemination was based on vast inequalities, a fact which illuminates how removed the GR was from feeding people. High-yielding varieties (HYVs) required irrigation and chemical fertilizers. Since state investments in irrigation were biased in favor of certain regions29 and fertilizers were unaffordable for most small-scale farmers, only wealthier farmers were able to capitalize on HYVs Regional disparities were also at the root of this model: the GR focused on boosting the productivity of high-potential areas, with the assumption that small farmers in marJLQDO DUHDV ZRXOG EHQHÀW E\ EHFRPLQJ ODERUHUV LQ RWKHU DUHDV 7KXV WKH *5 LQYROYHG not only the deployment of technologies beyond the reach of smallholders, but also the exclusion of peasant agriculture from the modern commercial economy30. Therefore, rural social disparities are not simply a negative outcome of export agriculture; they are a necessary condition for its realization. Moreover, the Green Revolution set in motion an international research system aimed at creating a global reach. As a result, crop breeding is largely geared toward generating widely adaptable homogenous varieties (i.e. diffusion of innova-